__._,_.___
We have conceded everything that India wanted but we have not managed to receive anything in return except the warmth of India's friendship. One wonders whether this friendship is between the peoples of two neighbouring countries or between the two parties that have come to power here and in India, writes Professor M Maniruzzaman Miah
PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO DELHI
India's success and Bangladesh's failure
[Attachment(s) from nafrin@yahoo.com included below]
Join Drishtipat DC for a cultural extravaganza on February 21, to celebrate UN International Mother Language Day! Come enjoy an evening of music and colorful dance performances from around the world – traditional Bangladeshi dances, Indian melodies, Native-American songs, music from the Andes, belly dancing, tango and more
When: Sunday, Feb 21, 2010, 6:00 - 7:30 pm Where: Historic 6th and I Synagogue, 600 I Street NW, Washington DC (near Chinatown metro) This event is being hosted by Drishtipat DC (http://www.drishtipat.org/dc) along with: |
Attachment(s) from nafrin@yahoo.com
1 of 1 Photo(s)
Political parties based on religious values exist in many parts of the world. India is a big example. BJP which currently runs some state governments in India and also formed the central government in the past. BJP is not only a political party but a fundamentalist political force with its extremist views. Right wing christian party is in power in Germany second time in a row. BAL is again in the driving seat with its shallow knowledge which is dangerous. Be careful. --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Shamim Chowdhury <veirsmill@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
I am not a supporter of Jamat but I will tell you one thing. BAL asked for Jamat's blessings in 1991 to get their presidential candidate passed. Jamat said no to BAL. BAL tried many times to be friend with Jamat but Jamat leadership said 'hell no with BAL'. Only major political party in Bangladesh, BAL worked with another unknown Islamic party to get to the power and establish 'FATWA'. BAL signed a treaty with that party to let them declare fatwa if they win, a form of sha'ria just before the 2006 election. BTW, who is Bangabandhu to revoke someone's citizenship. It is the highest court that can decide. --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Shamim Chowdhury <veirsmill@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
Larry Lifschultz is a friend whom I knew in the years after the Mujib murder during the time he was doing his research on Bangladesh politics. I remember mourning Salvador Allende's brutal killing in Chile while Larry was visiting me in London.
Farida Majid
http://www.thedaily
> The Daily Star
> August 15, 2005
>
> The past is never dead
> THE LONG SHADOW OF THE AUGUST 1975 COUP
> by Lawrence Lifschultz
>
> Was the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his
> family members on August 15, 1975 merely the result of personal
> malice and an act out of sudden fury of some army officers?
>
> Long investigation by veteran US journalist Lawrence Lifschultz has
> made it clear that there was a deep-rooted conspiracy behind the dark
> episode of August 15.
>
> Lifschultz in a number of investigative reports published in
> newspapers made it clear that Khandaker Moshtaque and a quarter of US
> embassy officials in Dhaka were closely involved with the small
> section of army officers in the August 15 coup.
>
> At long last, Lifschultz disclosed the name of his "very reliable
> source", the then US ambassador in Dhaka Eugene Booster with whom he
> has maintained close communication for the 30 years.
>
> Booster repeatedly objected to the conspiracy leading to the August
> 15 assassination, even issued written instruction in this regard, but
> failed to prevent the then station chief Philip Cherry of US Central
> Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Dhaka office from doing the conspiracy.
>
> Lifschultz's plan to publish an interview of Eugene Booster in this
> regard remained unfulfilled as Booster passed away on July 7 last.
>
> The new-born Bangladesh could not save herself from the wrath of then
> foreign secretary Henry Kissinger who could never forget that
> Bangladesh was born in opposition to his suggestion.
>
> Along with Salvador Allende of Chile and Taiyoo of Vietnam,
> Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was in Kissinger's political
> vendetta.
>
> What USA started during the Liberation War in 1971 with attempt to
> split the Awami League using Khandaker Moshtaque and his accomplices
> continued after the independence following a direct US instigation,
> resulting in the carnage on August 15, 1975.
>
> On basis of his 30 years' investigation that included interviews with
> the US sources, Moshtaque and others concerned, Lifschultz has
> written a series of that tale.
>
> The first part of his four reports is published today.
> ------------
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
__._,_.___
Religious Freedom Is Indivisible: Muslims Should Seek it in Islamic Societies Too | |
By Sultan Shahin, editor, New Age Islam
The Swiss ban on minarets is having an echo in India. Abdul Sami Bubere of the Mumbai- based Sahyog Cultural Society is reported to have said: "The extremely provocative decision undermines the freedom of religion and principle of co- existence. The referendum is akin to tyranny of the majority. It will only encourage fundamentalism. The ban should be immediately lifted as it would serve the purpose of jihadis who misinterpret Islam." Though I won't use such strong words, I fully agree with the sentiments and thoughts expressed in the above sentiment. The analysis that "it will only encourage fundamentalism" is also correct. It is actually happening. The fundamentalists are taking advantage of the situation created by the Swiss ban on minarets and the French ban on burqas (veils). But then the question arises in my mind, how come we get agitated only when our own religious freedom is at stake in non-Muslim societies. We do not worry when Muslims themselves, not to speak of non-Muslims, are not allowed religious freedom in Islamic societies. We were permitted to defend ourselves with arms (a form of Jihad, albeit a lesser form) because if we had not done so, people may not have been able to worship in temples, monasteries, churches, synagogues, etc., all those places of worship were God is remembered and God's praises are sung. Renowned Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes: "The Qur'ān asserts that if the use of force would not have been allowed in such cases, the disruption and disorder caused by insurgent nations could have reached the extent that the places of worship – where the Almighty is kept in constant remembrance – would have become deserted and forsaken, not to mention the disruption of the society itself: وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَهُدِّمَتْ صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا اسْمُ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا (٤٠:٢٢) And had it not been that Allah checks one set of people with another, the monasteries and churches, the synagogues and the mosques, in which His praise is abundantly celebrated would have been utterly destroyed. (22:40) Apparently we were allowed a lower form of Jihad, the Qital, that involves fighting, so that we could safeguard the human right of every individual to freely sing the praises of God in any kind of worship place he likes, be it a monastery, a temple, a church, a synagogue, or a mosque. But how come, we feel concerned only when it is a matter concerning a mosque and do not bother if states, particularly Muslim and avowedly Islamic states do not allow temples, monasteries, churches and synagogues to function or create hurdles in the way of non-Muslims singing the praises of God in their own way. Not only that. We have scholars who claim that while non-Muslims have perfect freedom to practice their religion in an Islamic state, (though in practice they are not mostly allowed that freedom), Muslims do not have that freedom. Once born to a Muslim parent, you are doomed for ever to be a Muslim or else. Well, your throat will be slit, no less. Indeed, there are "revered" ulema (scholars of Islam) in various schools of thought who say that if someone is seen so much as not attending Friday prayers, his throat should be slit. Sample the following:
"A person greatly admires Hazrat Maulana Rashid Gangohi, the outstanding scholar who was one of the founders of the Deoband madrasa. The gentleman to whom I refer is a kindly soul, who can be depended upon for help by others. However, when in the course of conversation I chanced to remark that the most basic virtue lay in kindness towards others, he contradicted me. Kindness, he contended, was reserved for "pious, practicing Muslims". As for others, they should be given a chance to mend their ways, after which "they would be Wajibul Qatal (liable to be killed)". Another person I chanced to meet — a finance man, no less — feels that people who do not attend Friday prayers "should simply be killed. Slit their throats!" "Now, this kind of sanguinary verbal ferocity is very different from the traditions of quiet piety and gentle acceptance in which most Muslims were brought up. I claim no expertise to suggest whether this or the other is the 'correct' version of Islamic thinking. However, there are certainly many scholars who hold that this aggressive literalism, popularly but incorrectly referred to as 'fundamentalism', is a doctrinal innovation of relatively recent origin. It is very much a product of the linear, pseudo-logical thinking that has characterised our violent and intolerant age — an age that began with the full flowering of modern imperialism in the nineteenth century and whose baleful cultural and psychic responses have long outlived their origins. With this kind of intellectual legacy as a backdrop, what kind of political discourse is possible in Pakistan?" -- Salman Tarik Kureshi http://newageislam. Also, sample the following from a supposedly enlightened scholar of Islam: "Freedom is a neutral word. Accordingly, affixing it with religion would mean a liberty of a person either to have or not to have a religion, either to practice or not to practise, either to propagate or not to propagate, either to embrace or not to embrace, either to change or not change one's own religion. If he decides to do so he has the freedom to do it without any interference of others. This is the meaning of freedom as it appeared in the above examples. "Is a Muslim allowed to enjoy such freedom? As a matter of fact, under Shariah law, a Muslim is not free to do so, no matter whether he is under Muslim rule or non-Muslim rule except with dire necessity. In fact the meaning of Islam itself, that is submission and surrender to the will of Almighty Allah (swt), is inimical to the vague meaning of freedom (cf.hurriah) in its absolute sense. Thus, a Muslim cannot enjoy freedom in respect of articles of belief (Iman) and practicing of pillars of Islam, (arkan al Islam) and observance of codes of life, because, these are essential of keep him a believer and a Muslim. He may enjoy a guided freedom with regards to those matters that do not fall under the basic and obligatory tenets and pillars of region." – Freedom Of Religion in Shariah by Dr. ABM Mahboobul Islam of the International Islamic University of Malaysia. The poor orphans of war known as Taliban who ruled Afghanistan for a while have been considered bizarre in thinking that if someone does not have a beard of a certain length and doesn't wear certain length of cloth or if a woman shows even an inch of skin, they are liable for various punishments. But I find that this is actually the mainstream of conservative thinking in Islam which is not being opposed by mainstream Islam. It is to the credit of Talban that by trying to implement these outlandish ideas of our ulema they have brought this out into the open. But for them people like me who were happy with the thought of a mainstream Islam, peaceful and pluralistic, would not have thought of studying the clerical literature at some length and trying to find out the truth. It is this obscurantist mindset that pervades the minds of a large number of Muslims. No wonder then that while some of us balk at the very thought of a Talibani Islam and just take it for granted that such an interpretation of Islam simply would not be acceptable to the mainstream, on a closer look we discover that actually the mainstream, at least in backward societies, does not have much of a problem. I hope Mr. Abdul Sami Bubere of the Mumbai- based Sahyog Cultural Society and other people who are bothered about the Swiss ban on minarets or the French ban on burqa or India's Hindu Right demanding the abolition of Muslim Personal Law will also express their disgust, if they feel it, over the lack of religious freedoms to non-Muslims and more so Muslims in so-called Islamic societies. So-called Islamic scholars go to great lengths to prove that Quranic dictates like "La Ikraha fid Deen" (There can be no compulsion in religion) or Lakum Deenakum waleya Deen (For you your religion and for me mine) have no meaning and relevance for the Muslims today and should be banished from our consciousness. Shame on such scholars!!! Until we start fighting for religious freedom in our own societies (of both Muslims and non-Muslims) URL: http://newageislam. |
Now corporate managers can in effect buy elections directly, bypassing more complex indirect means. It is well-known that corporate contributions, sometimes packaged in complex ways, can tip the balance in elections, hence driving policy. The court has just handed much more power to the small sector of the population that dominates the economy. The background is enlightening. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged that 'we have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment' — the constitutional guarantee of free speech, which would include support for political candidates. Morton Horwitz writes in his standard legal history that the concept of corporate personhood evolved alongside the shift of power from shareholders to managers, and finally to the doctrine that 'the powers of the board of directors 'are identical with the powers of the corporation.'' In later years, corporate rights were expanded far beyond those of persons, notably by the mislabelled 'free trade agreements.' Under these agreements, for example, if General Motors establishes a plant in Mexico, it can demand to be treated just like a Mexican business ('national treatment') —quite unlike a Mexican of flesh and blood who might seek 'national treatment' in New York, or even minimal human rights. The January 21 decision raises significant new barriers to overcoming the serious crisis of healthcare, or to addressing such critical issues as the looming environmental and energy crises. The gap between public opinion and public policy looms larger. And the damage to American democracy can hardly be overestimated.
The corporate takeover
of US democracy
So the results were indeed an uprising against President Obama's policies: For the wealthy, he was not doing enough to enrich them further, while for the poorer sectors, he was doing too much to achieve that end, writes Noam Chomsky
JANUARY 21, 2010, will go down as a dark day in the history of US democracy, and its decline.
On that day the US Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban corporations from political spending on elections — a decision that profoundly affects government policy, both domestic and international.
The decision heralds even further corporate takeover of the US political system.
To the editors of The New York Times, the ruling 'strikes at the heart of democracy' by having 'paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.'
The court was split, 5-4, with the four reactionary judges (misleadingly called 'conservative') joined by Justice Anthony M Kennedy. Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds and manoeuvred the court into using it to push through a far-reaching decision that overturns a century of precedents restricting corporate contributions to federal campaigns.
Political economist Thomas Ferguson's 'investment theory of politics' is a very successful predictor of government policy over a long period. The theory interprets elections as occasions on which segments of private sector power coalesce to invest to control the state.
The January 21 decision only reinforces the means to undermine functioning democracy.
In the early 20th century, legal theorists and courts implemented the court's 1886 decision that corporations — these 'collectivist legal entities' — have the same rights as persons of flesh and blood.
This attack on classical liberalism was sharply condemned by the vanishing breed of conservatives. Christopher G Tiedeman described the principle as 'a menace to the liberty of the individual, and to the stability of the American states as popular governments.'
A century ago, Woodrow Wilson, then an academic, described an America in which 'comparatively small groups of men,' corporate managers, 'wield a power and control over the wealth and the business operations of the country,' becoming 'rivals of the government itself.'
In reality, these 'small groups' increasingly have become government's masters. The Roberts court gives them even greater scope.
The January 21 decision came three days after another victory for wealth and power: the election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to replace the late Senator Edward M Kennedy, the 'liberal lion' of Massachusetts. Brown's election was depicted as a 'populist upsurge' against the liberal elitists who run the government.
The voting data reveal a rather different story.
High turnouts in the wealthy suburbs, and low ones in largely Democratic urban areas, helped elect Brown. 'Fifty-five percent of Republican voters said they were 'very interested' in the election,' The Wall St. Journal/NBC poll reported, 'compared with 38 per cent of Democrats.'
So the results were indeed an uprising against President Obama's policies: For the wealthy, he was not doing enough to enrich them further, while for the poorer sectors, he was doing too much to achieve that end.
The popular anger is quite understandable, given that the banks are thriving, thanks to bailouts, while unemployment has risen to 10 per cent.
In manufacturing, one in six is out of work — unemployment at the level of the Great Depression. With the increasing financialisation of the economy and the hollowing out of productive industry, prospects are bleak for recovering the kinds of jobs that were lost.
Brown presented himself as the 41st vote against healthcare — that is, the vote that could undermine majority rule in the US Senate.
It is true that Obama's healthcare programme was a factor in the Massachusetts election. The headlines are correct when they report that the public is turning against the programme.
The poll figures explain why: the bill does not go far enough. The Wall St. Journal/NBC poll found that a majority of voters disapprove of the handling of healthcare both by the Republicans and by Obama.
These figures align with recent nationwide polls. The public option was favoured by 56 per cent of those polled, and the Medicare buy-in at age 55 by 64 per cent; both programmes were abandoned.
Eighty-five per cent believe that the government should have the right to negotiate drug prices, as in other countries; Obama guaranteed Big Pharma that he would not pursue that option.
Large majorities favour cost-cutting, which makes good sense: US per capita costs for healthcare are about twice those of other industrial countries, and health outcomes are at the low end.
But cost-cutting cannot be seriously undertaken when largesse is showered on the drug companies, and healthcare is in the hands of virtually unregulated private insurers — a costly system peculiar to the US.
ZNet, February 5